Y'know...the ones you claimed were a poisonous part of the right - over and over - and claimed the right couldn't exclude them despite their totally racist, hate message...over and over? Because despite their evil rhetoric, they were in the right (heh) because they were "fiscally conservative" and therefore justified?

I'm sorry? Could you please find a quote of me saying it's ok for folks at a Tea Party rally (or any conservative event) to wave signs saying "Ni*ger's not wanted", or "God hates Fa*gs", or "Mexican's are lazy", or whatever? I have *never* excused that kind of behavior. What I have done, "over and over" is argue that if you were to actually attend a conservative event, you'd find that no one's actually waving stuff like that, or saying stuff like that, or in fact making any statements remotely like that.

Well... Unless some liberal shows up and does it so they can perpetuate the narrative. And in that case, they're asked to leave extremely quickly.

Quote:

Over and over and over again?

Then it should be easy to find a quote. Right?

And no. A contrived "well, if you support this political position, it means you don't like this group, and that's equivalent to hate speech!" doesn't count. That's your interpretation of the motivation behind a position, and it's that interpretation that I disagree with. You'd need to find examples of actual conservatives actually saying "we're doing this because we hate X group". And then find me excusing that language. Trust me. You can't find this. But good luck trying.

he's an idiot for thinking that getting everyone a gun would do anything to stop terrorism

I have no problem with people holding different positions than I do. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with someone else's position. What I do have a problem with is expressing your disagreement, and then completely mischaracterizing the position you're disagreeing with. It makes one wonder if you're intentionally doing so in order to make for an easier counter argument, or if you honestly don't understand the other guy's position.

This is an example of that. The sheriff did not say that "everyone" should "get a gun". And he certainly didn't say that we should (who is "we" here anyway) be "getting everyone a gun". The way you phrased that makes it seem like some external group (the government maybe?) should be in charge of providing everyone with a gun in order to help fight terrorists.

But what he actually said was for those people who do have permits to carry weapons, to carry them more often, so as to be better able to oppose a terrorist attack if it should occur. Which, if you stop and think about it, is perfectly reasonable.

Again. You're free to disagree with his suggestion. But to say that an entire group of people "disgust" you, maybe you should have a better reason than what you provided. Just a suggestion. Otherwise, it just smacks of the very tribalism you started out saying you hate.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm in a new class now and everything that seemed great before has passed. Now I can go back to feeling like being in the same room as a woman is sexually harassing them.

I realize the article wasn't saying everyone should be provided with a gun. I also don't really care, just like I didn't care to explain the article fully. --especially given what the article actually says is more or less just as bad. I won't pretend to go back and read it, but basically some guy in a position of authority is telling people to "arm themselves" because "this is war."

I could write a huge wall of text about why this is irresponsible, but I shouldn't have to. It is obvious. Aside from that, I said it was idiotic because it's like telling people they should buy suits made of rubber in case they get hit by lightning. But people love to be afraid of terrorism, and gun enthusiasts love to fantasize about being a cowboy action heroes who save the day in the unlikely event there is a terror incident where having a gun might actually help anything. Instead of killing terrorists, they end up shooting their 9 year old daughter in the face and killing them. But yeah. Let's encourage a population of blithering imbeciles to "arm themselves" some more and see where it goes.

I would like to clarify some comments I made recently regarding Kavekkk. For openers, it would be great if we could bring terrorism to its knees. Still, if we take a step, just a step, towards addressing the issue of jingoism, then maybe we can open people's eyes (including our own) to a vision of how to appeal for comity between us and Kavekkk. There is more at play here than his purely political game of deflecting attention from his unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen. There are ideologies at work, hidden agendas to convince innocent children to follow a path that leads only to a life of crime, disappointment, and destruction. I don't know what Kavekkk's problem is, but I sometimes see well-meaning people swallow his lie that he is able to abrogate the natural order of effects flowing from causes. To my mind, shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. That's why I wish that all decent people realized that Kavekkk's goal is to sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that Trotskyism is a beautiful entelechy that makes us whole. How rebarbative is that? How muddleheaded? How despicable?

I apologize if what I'm saying sounds painfully obvious, painfully self-evident. However, it is so extremely important that I must surely say it. Pusillanimous draffsacks of one sort or another rarely question, resist, or protest those events that do not appear to affect them directly. For example, they ignore how Kavekkk has been retaining an institution which, twist and turn as you like, is and remains a disgrace to humanity. Did you hear what he recently said about communism? Never before has an uppish, two-faced rattlebrain so cleverly hidden in plain sight his intention to break down our communities.

Kavekkk's brand of incendiarism focuses on granting more power to soulless, salacious chowderheads regardless of the implication for others. Kavekkk-inspired incendiarism further advocates that these folks use their newly attained power for good or evil as they individually decide. I reject this and every other form of incendiarism because I never intend to offend anyone, Kavekkk included. Alas, the following statement may upset a few people: It is not possible fully to understand the present except as a projection of the past. Some people squirm a bit when they they read things like that, but such statements are the key to explaining why for many people, Kavekkk's bellicose jokes have caused substantial pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, post-traumatic stress, sleeplessness, indignities and embarrassment, degradation, injury to reputation, and restrictions on personal freedom. Whew! The only thing they haven't yet caused, surprisingly, is a greater realization that we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Kavekkk. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that there is no doubt that Kavekkk will use our weaknesses to his advantage eventually. Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that Kavekkk's ****-and-bull stories constitute an instigation to guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community. This is not a matter of perception but of concrete, material reality.

Let me relate to you the most incontrovertibly true statement I've ever heard: “These issues are actually political issues.” Whoever said that clearly understood that Kavekkk dreams of a time when he'll be free to discredit legitimate voices in the imperialism debate. That's the way he's planned it, and that's the way it'll happen—not may happen but will happen—if we don't interfere, if we don't criticize his missives publicly for their formalistic categories, their spurious claims of neutrality, and their blindness to the abuse of private power. With an enormous expenditure of words, unclear in content and incomprehensible as to meaning, he frequently stammers an endless hodgepodge of phrases purportedly as witty as in reality they are blinkered. Only mutinous exponents of expansionism can feel at home in this maze of reasoning and cull an “inner experience” from this dung heap of morally corrupt fainéantism.

Perhaps it's a stretch, but what Kavekkk has been doing in terms of borrowing money and spending it on programs that convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter reminds me of the way that the worst classes of closed-minded, diabolism-oriented ragabashes I've ever seen put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse. That said, I like to say that the most rapacious mantra that Kavekkk's apple-polishers utter is that views not informed by radical critique implicitly promote hegemonic values. He never directly acknowledges such truisms but instead tries to turn them around to make it sound like I'm saying that Tartuffism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. I guess that version better fits his style—or should I say, “agenda”?

I have in fact told Kavekkk that it is worth remembering that his patsies will have to stop shouting “Me, me!” and learn to harmonize on “Us, us!”. Unfortunately, there really wasn't anything to his response. I suppose Kavekkk just doesn't want to admit that he identifies with snooty, foolish tartarean-types (also known as Kavekkk's eulogists). To understand identity in the context of the present social order, however, one must first understand that thoughtful people are being forced to admit, after years of evading the truth, that I have been right. I was right when I said that Kavekkk's hatred knows no bounds. I was right when I said that all Kavekkk does is complain, complain, complain. And I was right when I said that when you tell Kavekkk's expositors that there is still a great deal about Kavekkk's personal history that has been concealed from the public, they begin to get fidgety and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that we truly can't afford to let him taunt, deride, and generally vilipend his castigators. What I'm suggesting is that we get people to stop believing lies that were forged in the fiery pits of ****. That's the key to refuting Kavekkk's arguments line-by-line and claim-by-claim, and it's the only way that most people will ever learn that if I said that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being entirely honest if I said that Kavekkk gives new meaning to the word “predatory”. That's just a fancy way of saying that many people respond to Kavekkk's slovenly ramblings in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of Kavekkk's antics.

While sullen dunderheads claim to defend traditional values, they actually violate strongly held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains. Kavekkk's cop-outs leave me with several unanswered questions: Will peeling back the onion of his fastuous execrations cause him to shed tears or will it merely enhance his desire to misdirect, discredit, disrupt, and otherwise neutralize his adversaries? And what exactly is the principle that rationalizes his effete roorbacks? These are difficult questions to answer because his viewpoints are undoubtedly feckless. However, for many theorists in the humanities today, the key issue with Kavekkk's viewpoints boils down to one question: Which of the seven deadly sins—pride, envy, anger, sadness, avarice, gluttony, and lust—does Kavekkk not commit on a daily basis? To answer that rhetorical question let me just say that Kavekkk used to maintain that his debauches are the result of a high-minded urge to do sociological research. When he realized that no one was falling for that claptrap, he quickly changed his tune to say that he possesses infinite wisdom. Kavekkk is honestly a lubricious liar, and shame on anyone who believes him.

If you delve deeply into Kavekkk's flights of fancy and thus, in tranquil clarity, submit to contemplation the crotchets of disorganized marplots, you will certainly discover why we see Kavekkk's drones reach untold zeniths of ridiculousness each passing day. My current favorite comment of theirs is that the eradication of Kavekkk's opponents would restore mankind's golden age and save humanity from ruination. It's that sort of flapdoodle that reminds me that Kavekkk's conduct can be described as less than gentlemanly. Every time I strike that note, which I guess I do a lot, I hear from people calling me importunate or effrontive. Here's my answer: Kavekkk wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet he is also a big proponent of a particularly politically incorrect form of solecism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that Kavekkk claims that the Scriptures are responsible for his temulent thoughts and fancies. This eisegetical fantasy is not only pudibund, but it fails to consider that an armed revolt against Kavekkk is morally justified. However, I believe that it is not yet strategically justified.

I once had a nightmare in which Kavekkk was free to give rise to peevish, verbally incontinent social outcasts of one sort or another. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that Kavekkk is capable of passing very rapidly from a hidden enjoyment of foul blackguardism to a proclaimed attachment to absenteeism and back—and back again. In the presence of high heaven and before the civilized world I therefore assert that when people come to me for advice on how to respond to Kavekkk's piteous perorations, I tend to proffer them an aphorism from my uncle, who schooled me on how to deal with such nonsense. My uncle would typically say something like, “Kavekkk likes to put on a honest face to dissimulate his plans to make our lives miserable”. Great stuff. There's no doubt that my uncle recognizes that a good friend of mine once made an honest and accurate effort to connect Kavekkk's current campaign of national destruction with his previous attempts to turn over our country to exploitative crypto-fascists. My friend's effort was completely and totally based on fact. Nevertheless, when Kavekkk heard about it, he went after my friend, which is not too surprising given that we must mobilize the public. We must get people to objurgate Kavekkk for exhibiting cruelty to animals.

Kavekkk has been trying for some time to convince people that a book's value to the reader is somehow influenced by the color of the author's skin. Don't believe his hype! Kavekkk has just been offering that line as a means to convert once-great academic institutions into worthless diploma mills. If I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less truculent than Kavekkk. One wonders if he has the cheek to manipulate the unseen mechanisms of society so as to dismantle the guard rails that protect society from the dodgy elements in its midst. I clearly hope not because I want to make plans and carry them out. But first, let me pose an abstract question. Why have so many sick-minded, abominable nitpicky-types gone into paroxysms of glee over his statement that his boisterous, scary plunderbund is a benign and charitable agency? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that the point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I hope not, but then again, I want to give people more information about Kavekkk, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I undeniably hope people draw: I recently heard a famous celebrity—I forgot which one—say, “Kavekkk is a big fan of interrogation and torture.” That's such a great quote, I wish I had been the one who thought of it. Sadly, the cleverest thing I ever said was that if Kavekkk's tricks were intended as a joke, Kavekkk forgot to include the punchline. Now that I've said all that I planned to say, you can agree with me or disagree with me. We can have honest differences. But please remember this parting thought: Only by striving to make pretentiousness unfashionable can I take stock of what we know, identify areas for further research, and provide a useful starting point for debate on Kavekkk's inhumane editorials.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

I realize the article wasn't saying everyone should be provided with a gun. I also don't really care, just like I didn't care to explain the article fully.

And yet you felt the need to grossly mischaracterize the basic message in the article itself, and the message of the Sheriff as well. I guess I'm not sure what your objective is here then. You don't want to bother to read what the other guy actually says, but will point to an article about it and pretend he said something "bad" so you can point out how bad it is? Um... what? Surely you can see how that might motivate someone to actually read the article and actually watch the video and point out how you got it entirely wrong.

Quote:

--especially given what the article actually says is more or less just as bad.

Except it isn't. It isn't anywhere near "as bad" as what you claimed. If it really was, you wouldn't need to claim he said things he didn't actually say. You'd just directly quote him. The very fact that you felt the need to change what was said tells us not only that what he actually said wasn't "just as bad", but that you knew this when writing your post. Again, why else change the words?

Quote:

I won't pretend to go back and read it, but basically some guy in a position of authority is telling people to "arm themselves" because "this is war."

You either didn't actually read it or watch the video (I'm actually leaning in that direction), or you did decided to lie about the content. Because while he does use that language very briefly in the video, he actually first presents an argument that citizens can't just sit there and hope to not be victims, and then presents a list of things citizens can do to prepare ahead of time for the possibility of an attack. And "get yourself a gun" isn't actually even in the list. He says that those who have guns and carry permits should carry then wherever and whenever possible, and that having that gun sitting at home or in the car isn't going to help you if you find yourself in the midst of an attack. He addresses those who don't own guns or don't wish to as well, and gives advice about the kinds of things they could do as well. He also talked about how even unarmed citizens can make a difference if they choose to stand up as a group and oppose attackers (super relevant in the context of knife wielding attackers), since a number of people can overwhelm a small number regardless of weapons involved. He mentions the flight 91 passengers and how they fought against the terrorists, despite having no weapons, and suggests that that sort of attitude could save many lives (as it almost certainly did on 9/11).

But... You didn't actually watch the video, did you? Yet, you expressed a strong emotional response. i find that bizarre. I get being angry about something, but maybe you should actually check to see if that anger is justified first. My first response when someone tells me about something and say "OMG! this is terrible" is not to blindly accept their assessment and get angry, but to check to see if the thing really is terrible. You'd be amazed how often it's not. And even more amazed at how often the person telling me about this "terrible thing" isn't lying to me, but himself didn't actually check the source and instead blindly accepted the previous person's claim of terribleness. And that person often did as well. And the person before him, and the person before him, etc.

Read things for yourself and then assess them.

Quote:

I could write a huge wall of text about why this is irresponsible, but I shouldn't have to. It is obvious. Aside from that, I said it was idiotic because it's like telling people they should buy suits made of rubber in case they get hit by lightning.

Again. It's not irresponsible. In fact, if you actually bothered to watch the video, you'd find that he's not recommending anything close to irresponsibility. His suggestions are quite rational and reasonable.

Quote:

But people love to be afraid of terrorism, and gun enthusiasts love to fantasize about being a cowboy action heroes who save the day in the unlikely event there is a terror incident where having a gun might actually help anything. Instead of killing terrorists, they end up shooting their 9 year old daughter in the face and killing them. But yeah. Let's encourage a population of blithering imbeciles to "arm themselves" some more and see where it goes.

if you'd watched the video though, he made a specific point to gun owners to practice with their weapons and to attend gun training courses. So yeah. The exact opposite of what you're claiming.

And I'll point out again that he never actually said to anyone to buy or obtain a gun. He did not make any recommendation at all in that regard. He said that those who did own a gun and a carry permit should carry as often as they can. He said that if they do this, they should make sure to practice and take training courses so they can do so safely and effectively. He then said that for those who don't own a gun or are uncomfortable owning a gun, there are still options they could pursue, and mentioned a few of them.

He never once recommended to *anyone* who does not currently own a firearm to go out and get one. It's simply not in the video.

You're guessing what he said based on the stereotype you are carrying around inside your own head. You really should watch the video instead of speculating.

The article and video could be saying anything at all. My gripe is with the typical reaction in the comments section.

Edited, Jun 16th 2017 5:55am by Kuwoobie

I don't know if my adblock broke or what, but it's saying it just blocked 50+ pop-ups from this site and will no longer prevent the ads from appearing all over the margin, making it next to impossible to write anything here while it is constantly refreshing.

And yet, you were the one who linked the article and expressed disgust with comments about said article, and lumped an entire group of people (conservatives) into a category of people you hate and which disgust you. Specific to my comments about you mischaracterizing what the Sheriff said, was your statement about your brother presumably agreeing with the whole "conservative" mindset. A mindset which you defined as one that agreed with the complete mischaracterization of what the Sheriff said.

I hope you can see how it might behoove you to actually bother to watch the video and find out what the Sheriff actually said, before expressing such anger at people who agree with him.

Quote:

Kuwoobie wrote:

I won't pretend to go back and read it

The article and video could be saying anything at all. My gripe is with the typical reaction in the comments section.

Two problems with that:

1. I addressed the issue with your reaction to the comments separately from my response to your mischaracterization of what the Sheriff said. You're the one who said he was advocating "getting everyone a gun". Ok, technically, you said that your brother was the kind of person who would think that was a great idea, but presumably that "idea" is the one the Sheriff was proposing, so it's the same thing.

2. I've viewed the linked article several times now, on two different browsers, and maybe I'm missing something, but I don't actually see a comments section on that page (or the second page either). Is it somewhere else? Did the move or delete said comments? Or did you read comments on some other site about the same subject? In any case, I can't comment on the comments since I haven't read them, and can't find them.

And that's before pointing out that there are a lot of people who use those comment sections to do nothing but troll. I would not take them as any sort of barometer of what anyone actually thinks about an issue, much less what a broad set of people like "conservatives" think. Again though, since I haven't been able to find these comments that so offended you, I'm left having to take your word for it that they were so vile and so offensive, that your highly emotional response we totally justified.